NerO - Schematics & Key Features

[FTDI Chip]

For those of you who are interested in hardware design, you can now get NerO schematics - you are free to re-use any of these in your own futures designs. For more details go to: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1218034479/nero-an-energy-efficient-arduino-uno-compatible-de/posts/1440166

[mcinque]

Are you really representing FTDI? And did you really understand what users, here on this forum, thinks about your company and your amazing anti-fake strategy? 

[donotdespisethesnake]

Under your FAQ you've got:

I'd like to manufacture NerO for myself - what's the rules here?
...
4. Stick with the original design - don't cheapen it by removing the 5V level converters or substituting something else in place of our X-series USB UART.

If that really is a rule, restricting how people may modify the design is incompatible with Open Source Hardware. I would drop that.

Overall, the switching regulator is a good idea, it is a well known weakness of the original Arduinos. Would be nice if Arduino fixed that themselves.

Otherwise it seems like a cynical attempt to build rep and get FTDI devices into the "maker market". OSHW doesn't work like that. The first thing people will do is swap the FTDI chip for something with a better reputation, if they pay any attention to the design at all that is. Not a lot of the target audience will be using Altium!

[mcinque]

it seems like a cynical attempt to build rep

instead of "cynical", I would have used "pathetic". It fits better IMO.

[timofonic]

SPAM

BAN

DELETE

F"·$· Terminator Death Ics

EEvBLOG needs 800x more moderators. Let's make the Moderatoriser...


If they want publicity, pay for it. This isn't true Libre Hardware.


You clone Arduino. To make justice, they should explode in the CEOs faces

[Simon]

SPAM

BAN

DELETE

F"·$· Terminator Death Ics

EEvBLOG needs 800x more moderators. Let's make the Moderatoriser...


If they want publicity, pay for it. This isn't true Libre Hardware.


You clone Arduino. To make justice, they should explode in the CEOs faces

Why deny people the oportunity to tell them where to go ? i personally won't use FTDI stuff for two reasons: 1 the way they handled the alst fiasco and what they did in the first place, 2 they are scottish which probably led to the first point!

[Karel]

Are you really representing FTDI? And did you really understand what users, here on this forum, thinks about your company and your amazing anti-fake strategy? 

I think you should speak for yourself. I have no problems with FTDI.
If you get into problems because you bought fake chips, then you probably have learned a lesson. Don't buy fake chips.
If your supplier told you that the fake chips were genuine, then you are fucked by your supplier. Don't blame FTDI.

[wblock]

It would have been fine for the FTDI driver to refuse to work with clones.  When the driver reprograms clones so they no longer work at all, that is is a property and security issue.  Also a vendor judgement issue.

Easier to just avoid FTDI than take the risk of getting clones.  As they say, "the problem is solved on our end."

[Karel]

It would have been fine for the FTDI driver to refuse to work with clones.  When the driver reprograms clones so they no longer work at all, that is is a property and security issue.  Also a vendor judgement issue.

It's an issue for the supplier.

Easier to just avoid FTDI than take the risk of getting clones.  As they say, "the problem is solved on our end."

It's easier not to buy fake chips.

[timofonic]

Quote from: Karel on Today at 05:58:12 AM>Quote from: wblock on Today at 05:06:34 AM

It would have been fine for the FTDI driver to refuse to work with clones.  When the driver reprograms clones so they no longer work at all, that is is a property and security issue.  Also a vendor judgement issue.

It's an issue for the supplier.
Quote from: wblock on Today at 05:06:34 AM

Easier to just avoid FTDI than take the risk of getting clones.  As they say, "the problem is solved on our end."

It's easier not to buy fake chips.



It's easier to not buy products with FTDI chips, there are counterfeits EVERYWHERE. You may get a nice *surprise* after buying some device

TO MODERATORS: This isn't Open Hardware. The manufacturers promised to release the project done in Altiuum a month after the product is sold. This only belongs to crowdfunded projects, it's considered SPAM.

[EEVblog]

EEvBLOG needs 800x more moderators. Let's make the Moderatoriser...
If they want publicity, pay for it. This isn't true Libre Hardware.

If FTDI want to post their OSHW project in the OSHW section then they are welcome to, provided they stick around and contribute to the discussion.
If you don't like their project or have a problem with it, then say so, that's a what a forum is for. Asking for them to be banned just because of your opinion of them, is wrong.

[Simon]

Are you really representing FTDI? And did you really understand what users, here on this forum, thinks about your company and your amazing anti-fake strategy? 

I think you should speak for yourself. I have no problems with FTDI.
If you get into problems because you bought fake chips, then you probably have learned a lesson. Don't buy fake chips.
If your supplier told you that the fake chips were genuine, then you are fucked by your supplier. Don't blame FTDI.

FTDI make (or design) a very non consequential chip. No product spec will tell you if an FTDI chip was used, it might tell you what the main processor is. Punishing an end user that bought a product with a fake chip in it that was specifically ordered from a supplier many levels up the chain is wreckless, stupid, ignorant and typical of a company that does not give a fuck! if the problem can become evident in manufacturing that is one thing. but to destroy products in the field is bad form. I will never have any respect for this company.

[Karel]

Punishing an end user that bought a product with a fake chip in it ...

The enduser is punished by either the person that decided to use a fake chip in the end product or by
the person that decided to sell fake chips to manufacturers.

[Simon]

Punishing an end user that bought a product with a fake chip in it ...

The enduser is punished by either the person that decided to use a fake chip in the end product or by
the person that decided to sell fake chips to manufacturers.

but someone buying the product has no idea and never made the choice to use a fake chip! refusing to work with the fake is fine, but to damage it is not.

[Karel]

but someone buying the product has no idea and never made the choice to use a fake chip!

Endusers usually have warranty. They can return their product and get a working one. Damages are for the company that
decided to go with fake chips.

[Simon]

but someone buying the product has no idea and never made the choice to use a fake chip!

Endusers usually have warranty. They can return their product and get a working one. Damages are for the company that
decided to go with fake chips.

if the end user still has documentation of the product being purchased and if it's still within warranty. The company selling the product may not have made it, the company they buy it from may not have, the actual manufacturer bought the chips from a wholesaler, the wholesaler may have had to deal with other suppliers. Yet you want to punish the one person that got proper screwed and who has no redress and has no idea what happened and knowing how hard claiming his money back will just dump the prodict and buy another one that may have a fake and so just give more money to the fakers and never punish them. Your a smart cookie you are.

[timb]

but someone buying the product has no idea and never made the choice to use a fake chip!

Endusers usually have warranty. They can return their product and get a working one. Damages are for the company that
decided to go with fake chips.

You're not going to win this fight so don't even try. You're just expending energy you could be using to jerk off to FTDI datasheets (or whatever else you do for fun).

Why aren't you going to win? Glad you asked! Two reasons:

1) You're wrong. Fun Fact: Even reputable supplies such as DigiKey have been duped by fake chips before! On top of that, prior to FTDIgate, they provided no way (short of ordering directly from through them) to verify if a chip was legit or not.

Aside from that, punishing end users of a product that the fake chip went into is bad form. Affected devices could have been 5+ years old, well out of any warranty or return period. (Remember that the designer of the product may not have even known the chips were fake.)

Keep in mind the fact they pushed this driver to Windows Update, which auto-installed on many systems, essentially bricking the devices (at least, as far as Joe Blow is concerned).

2) The anti-FTDI army is massive and will wear you down by sheer attrition.

[Karel]

The company selling the product may not have made it, the company they buy it from may not have, the actual manufacturer bought the chips from a wholesaler, the wholesaler may have had to deal with other suppliers.

That's not the problem of the enduser. The seller is obliged to take back the product and fix it. How they do that is their problem.
That's how warranty works.

[Simon]

The company selling the product may not have made it, the company they buy it from may not have, the actual manufacturer bought the chips from a wholesaler, the wholesaler may have had to deal with other suppliers.

That's not the problem of the enduser. The seller is obliged to take back the product and fix it. How they do that is their problem.
That's how warranty works.

thats not how warranty works. Who is responsible, FTDI for willfully destroying it (criminal action), microsoft for aiding and abetting the crime or the seller who did nothing wrong ? you still don't grasp that products usually are expected to last beyond the warranty period but then I bet that your idea of making a living is by screwing people selling them items that are designed to last just after the warranty period.

[Karel]

Even reputable supplies such as DigiKey have been duped by fake chips before!

So, blame them, not FTDI. Legally, if Digikey sells fake chips while saying they are genuine, they are responsible.
Same story. Either they know and they are responsible, or they didn't and they can forward the damages to their supplier.

(Remember that the designer of the product may not have even known the chips were fake.)

Same story. Either they know and they are responsible, or they didn't and they can forward the damages to their supplier.

[Karel]

thats not how warranty works.

Yes, it is.

[timb]

What FTDI did was legal. That doesn't mean it was the correct thing to do, ethically speaking. That's what you're failing to grasp here.

No one had a problem with them designing the driver to not work with counterfeit chips. We have a problem with them reprogramming said chips, effectively bricking them.

If they aren't FTDI chips, what business does FTDI have reprogramming their EEPROM? Answer me that smart guy.

[Simon]

Even reputable supplies such as DigiKey have been duped by fake chips before!

So, blame them, not FTDI. Legally, if Digikey sells fake chips while saying they are genuine, they are responsible.
Same story. Either they know and they are responsible, or they didn't and they can forward the damages to their supplier.

Oh so now it's someone elses fault after all and not the inoccent end user that does not even know what an FTDI chip is. and of course the end user knows where the parts were bought from and who assembled the product when it's out of warranty.

[Ian.M]

Lets *NOT* rehash the whole #FTDIgate mess.
All the arguments have already been presented in https://www.eevblog.com/forum/reviews/ftdi-driver-kills-fake-ftdi-ft232/
If you wish to continue that thread, that's up to you, but its severely off-topic other than as a mention when dissing the NerO project.

[SL4P]

The term that no-one has raised, and the suppliers do not appear to have taken into account in their purchase contracts is...

CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES that may be caused by an untested, non-original or defective part which has been supplied knowingly or otherwise against an order.

Your supplier may charge more to cover his insurance, or just not sell to you under those terms.
He may have back-to-back terms with his upstream suppliers etc.

If they do, and your product goes belly-up, then the right lawyer will have the supplier's insurer cover sll costs of recall, repair and replacement.

The same rules apply to YOUR customers - if they require cover for consequential damages you have the same options.

It's all a bit nasty, and keeps lawyers fed - but this is one factor that makes mil-spec equipment so expensive